Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Aug 16, 2010 9:41am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: woodstock (non peanuts related)

you know what I think? I think you DO have an axe to grinde about the whole deal and are just using this one example to nit pick. What if he had just come out and said - it's our music, we'll do whatever the fuck we want with it, and I can't stand those whiny ass moochers with their stupid ass finger in the air asking for their free handouts? Seriously, would all this then be a non issue?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Aug 16, 2010 9:46am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Yawn....

Bob in another comment:
The situation a year ago caused a great deal of commotion with a lot of passionate feelings being expressed. Looking back on it, is there anything that you'd like to share about what happened? Would you have done anything differently?

I've learned a lot from that. For instance, I learned that if we're going to go to the effort and expense of making a record that we have to be able to market it some way. We haven't really figured it out yet, but we're going to have to do that soon. If we're going to go through the effort and expense of making a record, we're going to need to at least get our money back out of it.

Did you expect such a backlash when you guys went the route you did?

I think for the most part that was your stock standard typical, very vocal minority. People were just not content to deal with the fact that a musician needs to make a living...

...that what you have is proprietary at the end of the day.

Right. They had no respect for intellectual property whatsoever. The musicians' needs are not being met. There's this myth that information has to be free. That was the big rallying cry back a year ago, and I don't buy that. It doesn't make sense. There is no way you can make it make sense, and I debated this with people who are big time web/internet blowhards who claim to know the situation inside and out. But, they don't know the situation legally and they don't know the situation morally -

[Bluedevil edit; not Bob}
What would Jerry do?

Take another hit and pass the buck to let someone else make the decision....

Some dude rants:

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Aug 16, 2010 11:15am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Yawn....

"... debated this with people who are big time web/internet blowhards who claim to know the situation inside and out"

Hey, he's reading our stuff!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Aug 16, 2010 11:23am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Yawn....

Yea, but I took that as a comment directed to his old pal Barlow.

From New York Times:
Downloads of the Dead are Not Dead Yet
Published: December 1, 2005
In the face of anger among its fans and divisions within the band itself, the Grateful Dead on Wednesday said it was reconsidering its decision to disallow downloads of the band's concert recordings from a large Internet archive.

With more than 4,200 signatures on an online petition calling for a boycott of Grateful Dead products - from tie-dyed T-shirts to kitsch [THAT IS THE OPERATIVE WORD] emblazoned with the band's dancing bear and skeleton icons - the band's spokesman said the members were still working out an official position on the controversy.

"The band has not fully made up its mind," the spokesman, Dennis McNally, said. "Things have already changed, and God only knows if they'll change some more."

Phil Lesh, the band's bass player, posted a statement on his own Web site ( on Wednesday, saying he had not known that band representatives the week before Thanksgiving had asked the operators of the Live Music Archive ( to stop allowing downloads of Grateful Dead concerts. "I do feel that the music is the Grateful Dead's legacy and I hope that one way or another all of it is available for those who want it," he wrote.

John Perry Barlow, one of the band's lyricists, said he had had a "pretty heated discussion" on Tuesday with Bob Weir, the Dead guitarist and singer, over the extent of the restrictions.

Before the death of Jerry Garcia, a founding member, ended its active career a decade ago, the Grateful Dead had pioneered the practice of allowing fans to record and circulate tapes of its concerts. So its attempted restriction of digital file-sharing felt to many Deadheads like a betrayal.

The band asked the archive to completely remove copies of live recordings made directly from concert soundboards - which are the legal property of the band but often leak into mass circulation - and to make audience recordings available only for listening, not downloading.

The Live Music Archive is a free library of recordings, some made by fans at concerts and others by artists themselves. According to its written policies, recordings are posted only with the permission of the artists.

The move not only created an uproar among the band's devoted fans; it also exposed divisions among factions within its extended family, which have often disagreed over the band's business philosophy.

Perhaps no one was more conflicted than Mr. Barlow, a founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organization that has fought multiple court cases in behalf of freedom of information on the Internet.

Mr. Barlow said he agreed that soundboard recordings should be restricted, but he said fans should continue to be free to circulate their own tapes, as they have for years.

Mr. Barlow said the blanket request to the Live Music Archive was driven by Mr. Weir and the band's drummers, Mickey Hart and Bill Kreutzmann. "It was almost as if they had just discovered it was happening, even though it's been online for at least three years," he said.

But there was also some question as to how explicit the band's permission had been in allowing files to be placed in the Live Music Archive to begin with. Mr. Barlow said the band had had a policy since 1997 that "we had no more problem with someone digital file sharing than we had with tape sharing." He said he had relayed that policy to operators of the archive when they contacted him.

"I said that, given that's our policy, I don't see a problem," Mr. Barlow said. But, he acknowledged, he had also feared that a request for explicit permission from the band's corporate entity might get snarled in band politics - which seemed to be the case this week.

Steve Bernstein, the publisher of Relix magazine, which began in the 1970's as an outlet for Deadhead tape trading, said the split reflected the band's current position. Although the surviving members still sometimes play together as the Dead, he said, their most reliable income comes from new releases of old concert recordings. So their avid file-sharing fans are now also their competitors.

Mr. Barlow said the band's other primary lyricist, Robert Hunter, did not wish to get involved in the public debate but supported his position. But the lyricists are not full voting members of the band, and given the apparent 3-1 split among the four surviving performing members in favor of disallowing the downloads, Mr. Barlow said he was not sure how the issue would play out.

In the meantime, the online forums at the Live Music Archive had plenty of outrage, but also a little sympathy. "This action demonstrates a very great lack of generosity on their part, as well as fundamental marketing miscalculation," one person wrote, speculating that people who trade recordings are likely to find other sources rather than buy the band's official releases.

But some veteran tape traders urged consideration for the band and a return to the days of sending tapes and discs through the mail. "Thing is, for all these faux pas, GD are still megaparsecs beyond the best of the other rockers," one wrote.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Purple Gel Date: Aug 16, 2010 9:46am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: woodstock (non peanuts related)

Wow, I must have hit a nerve.

Hey, you can speculate all you want about my motives, but I don't know how much clearer I can be about my opinion that they have the right to make as much money as they want off their product.

I'll say it again, they have the right to make all the money in the world. I don't begrudge anyone the right to make as much money as they can. If I had the opportunity to make that kind of money, I would jump at it. I still stand by my statement that the argument (and ONLY the argument) that they are hurting financially is bogus.

I'll shutup now.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Aug 16, 2010 10:08am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: woodstock (non peanuts related)

well the nerve you hit ( other than I don't like this tired ass topic ) is that i don't buy you jumping on just ONE example of this to argue because I've also seen you argue another point against why you thought they shouldn't have pulled the SBD's or how you felt slighted by it. My point is it's nobody's business to really have much of any opinion on what they do with what's theirs.

Don't get me wrong Purple Gel, I don't lump you in with the peice of shit that wrote that review but I have seen you make other arguements against. Besides, the one comment you picked out to argue was really just a little blurb or example and is really irrelevant to the greater picture so it is a little suspect imo.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Aug 16, 2010 4:11pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: woodstock (non peanuts related)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Aug 16, 2010 4:14pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: woodstock (non peanuts related)

yeah. exactly but also there's this comment

" These days, the only thing I pay for w/ these guys is for shows, where they are creating music in front of me, and I can re-connect with old friends.'

so you're pissed and wont buy anything but say you have more than you can listen to already BUT not pissed enough to not go see them?